OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of computer-aided detection (CAD) for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) when employed as either primary-reader or second-reader paradigms in a low-prevalence screening population. METHODS: Ninety screening patients underwent same-day CTC and colonoscopy. Four readers prospectively interpreted all CTC data sets using a second-reader paradigm (unassisted interpretation followed immediately by CAD assistance). Three months later, randomized anonymous data sets were re-interpreted by all readers using a primary-reader paradigm (only CAD prompts evaluated). RESULTS: Compared with the average per-patient sensitivity for unassisted interpretation (0.57), both CAD paradigms significantly increased sensitivity: 0.78 (p < 0.001) for the second-reader paradigm and 0.83 (p < 0.001) for the primary-reader paradigm. There was no significant difference between CAD paradigms (p = 0.25). The average per-patient specificity for polyps ≥6 mm was significantly higher using the primary-reader paradigm than the second-reader paradigm (0.90 vs. 0.83, respectively, p = 0.006), with ROC AUCs of 0.83 and 0.68, respectively. Reading time using CAD as a primary-reader paradigm (median 1.4 min) was significantly shorter than both unassisted (median 4.0 min, p < 0.001) and second-reader paradigms (median 5.5 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CAD improves radiologist sensitivity in screening patients when used as either a second- or primary-reader paradigm, although the latter may improve specificity and efficiency more.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of computer-aided detection (CAD) for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) when employed as either primary-reader or second-reader paradigms in a low-prevalence screening population. METHODS: Ninety screening patients underwent same-day CTC and colonoscopy. Four readers prospectively interpreted all CTC data sets using a second-reader paradigm (unassisted interpretation followed immediately by CAD assistance). Three months later, randomized anonymous data sets were re-interpreted by all readers using a primary-reader paradigm (only CAD prompts evaluated). RESULTS: Compared with the average per-patient sensitivity for unassisted interpretation (0.57), both CAD paradigms significantly increased sensitivity: 0.78 (p < 0.001) for the second-reader paradigm and 0.83 (p < 0.001) for the primary-reader paradigm. There was no significant difference between CAD paradigms (p = 0.25). The average per-patient specificity for polyps ≥6 mm was significantly higher using the primary-reader paradigm than the second-reader paradigm (0.90 vs. 0.83, respectively, p = 0.006), with ROC AUCs of 0.83 and 0.68, respectively. Reading time using CAD as a primary-reader paradigm (median 1.4 min) was significantly shorter than both unassisted (median 4.0 min, p < 0.001) and second-reader paradigms (median 5.5 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CAD improves radiologist sensitivity in screening patients when used as either a second- or primary-reader paradigm, although the latter may improve specificity and efficiency more.
Authors: D Burling; A Moore; M Marshall; J Weldon; C Gillen; R Baldwin; K Smith; P J Pickhardt; P Pickhardt; L Honeyfield; S A Taylor; S Taylor Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Ronald M Summers; Jianhua Yao; Perry J Pickhardt; Marek Franaszek; Ingmar Bitter; Daniel Brickman; Vamsi Krishna; J Richard Choi Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Steve Halligan; Susan Mallett; Douglas G Altman; Justine McQuillan; Maria Proud; Gareth Beddoe; Lesley Honeyfield; Stuart A Taylor Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Abraham H Dachman; Nancy A Obuchowski; Jeffrey W Hoffmeister; J Louis Hinshaw; Michael I Frew; Thomas C Winter; Robert L Van Uitert; Senthil Periaswamy; Ronald M Summers; Bruce J Hillman Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stuart A Taylor; Rebecca Greenhalgh; Rajapandian Ilangovan; Emily Tam; Vikram A Sahni; David Burling; Jie Zhang; Paul Bassett; Perry J Pickhardt; Steve Halligan Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-02-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C Daniel Johnson; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Alicia Y Toledano; Jay P Heiken; Abraham Dachman; Mark D Kuo; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Amy K Hara; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; Judy Yee; Benjamin A Herman; Lawrence J Burgart; Paul J Limburg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 91.245